I guess the idea is that the psychological burden of having received a donated heart caused the woman to have hallucinations? I don't know what to do with that information, but I wanted to look at a charitable interpretation of the suggestion.
FYI if you sign up as a tech employee, it lets you view requests (and seemingly respond to them? I didn't try.) without verifying your account. This includes whatever personal details the user put into the request.
I opted out of this. There is insufficient transparency around the systems that process that data, who has access to it, what kinds of problems have occurred, and if it is being employed ethically (see the sibling comment about chronically poor facial detection of non-white people).
They sure put a lot of effort into enshrining chattel slavery into law and preventing its destruction. It's the only state to secede from another nation twice to protect slavery.
Slavery was the primary motivation (just as it was the primary motivation for the 1861 pro-slavery rebellion of the US South). The weakness of the Mexican central state and its logistical difficulties sustaining its army was a convenient (for the white Texans) bonus that made their pro-slavery revolt possible.
If you want to keep digging, you can add American expansionism and ambitions to conquer big parts of Mexico, i.e. a "manifest destiny" land grab. The US was happy to tacitly support the Texans because whether they failed or succeeded it was relatively low risk for the US government and their success was likely to further US interests.
It's fair to say that the primary cause of Texan separatism was slavery.
It's also fair to say that Santa Anna was a proto-fascist and that was a legitimate factor, not a convenience. Lorenzo de Zavala, the former Mexican finance minister, didn't become Vice President of Texas for slavery or American expansionism.
Mexican elites were a brutal and repressive bunch, both before and long after this time, and "fascism" doesn't even begin to describe the evil racist systems of repression of indigenous people from the 16th up through at least the mid 20th century.
But Texas anglos didn't really give a shit about any of that. They just wanted to left alone to build their own little profitable slave plantation economy modeled after the US southern states.
Texas anglos weren't the only people involved in the Texan revolution. And while it's true that Mexican elites were largely brutal and repressive, they didn't generally generate rebellions in half the Mexican states simultaneously. Santa Anna did.
The periods before and after Santa Anna were also very violent and politically unstable, with armed rebellions all over Mexico. Santa Anna was fairly ordinary in his goals and methods by the standards of Mexican/Latin American caudillos.
The fundamental problem was not one or another particular person, but a society organized along quasi-feudal lines with extreme wealth/power concentration and systematic repression by elite landowners and a central state with limited power or legitimacy and huge logistical challenges. If it had been someone else other than Santa Anna in charge of Mexico, Texas anglo slave owners would have still had the same motivations and more or less the same systemic context, as would the US government, and eventual outcomes would have likely been similar.
IIRC I set this up for my grandmother way back in the day because she wanted a netscape/mozilla equivalent. I'd be interested to know what kinds of folks use it today.
Not to disagree with any of your points, I'm skeptical of the proportion of NPs that can safely practice any medicine at all. I've met one competent PA, one PA who didn't understand basic human anatomy, and an PMHNP with a PhD who had seemingly no knowledge of pharmacology at all. Then I stumbled across some forums about 'noctors' with horror stories about real doctors taking patients suffering from malpractice by NPs.
I mean, it was a response to people saying it was ok to desecrate a corpse because they’re dead and won’t know about it. So where do these people draw the line? If it’s OK to desecrate a corpse but necrophilia is “too far” then what is their argument?
The corpse doesn’t know if it was desecrated nor does it know if it was subject to necrophilia. So if desecrating a corpse is “ok” according to the above commentators, why is necrophilia not ok too? And if necrophilia is not ok, then perhaps there’s a flaw in their argument.
That is, some things are morally wrong, even if there is no apparent “victim” as the victim is dead.
reply